Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the shot-down dept.

Coryoth writes "The Canadian parliament has voted against renewing anti-terror laws that had been introduced after September 11, 2001. The rejected laws included provisions to hold terror suspects indefinitely, and to compel witnesses to testify, and were in some sense Canada's version fo the Patriot Act. The laws were voted down in the face of claims from the minority Conservative government that the Liberal Party was soft on terror, and despite the fact that Canada has faced active terrorist cells in their own country. The anti-terror laws have never been used, and it was viewed that they are neither relevant, nor needed, in dealing with terrorist plots. Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion."

12 of 507 comments (clear)

  1. Once again showing by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Funny

    that the U.S. is Canada's Mexico.

    1. Re:Once again showing by LunaticTippy · · Score: 5, Funny

      So what? Every country is somebody's Mexico.

      Except Santa's Workshop. North Pole, bitches!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  2. Oh Canada! by deadhammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd like to say that, as a full red-blooded, maple syrup-sweating, moose riding Canuck, I've never been prouder of my country. These sorts of laws always seem good in the panic moments when they're pushed through, but cooler heads will prevail. We've said no to bad, kneejerk legislation, and I'm proud to be a voter.

    --
    I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
    1. Re:Oh Canada! by mdielmann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As another Canadian, I entirely agree with you. While I'm generally a supporter of the conservative party (parties in some places), once again I'm vindicated in my opinion that minority governments are best for the average citizen.

      <rant>
      My theory goes something like this. No matter what you do, it's most often politicians and not visionaries who get voted into office, if for no other reason than they lie better. This leaves you with leaders who are more concerned with their best interest rather than the people's, which results in a corrupt government. Also, majority governments can ram through just about whatever they want, whereas minority governments have to negotiate and compromise. Another way to say this is majority governments are effective, while minority governments are ineffective. So given the two likeliest choices of a corrupt effective government and a corrupt ineffective government, I'll choose the latter. At least they have a harder time shafting us.
      </rant>

      Hey, if you can't rant about politics, what can you rant about?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  3. Makes me proud to be Canadian. by jmagar.com · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The sunset clause kicked in and it has rightfully expired. But what amazes, and impresses, me most is that a number of MPs chose not to vote. Abstained. Their reasoning: The provisions have not been used, and thus can be argued to be not needed. But the conflicting position is that since they were not used, they were not abused. The environment that existed to warrant the creation of these provisions has not gone away, and since we have not abused the provisions, then we should keep them... just in case.

    Both are sane positions, but I favor the one where civil rights are not taken away. A good day for all Canadians.

    --
    www.jmagar.com
    -
    1. Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian. by natophonic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada.
      If the powers granted by the legislation were never used, and terrorist cells in Canada were disrupted and dismantled during the five years this legislation was in effect, then that's a pretty shallow victory for the terrorists.

  4. Well, only active because of the Mounties by wwwrench · · Score: 5, Informative

    Canada has faced active terrorist cells in their own country.

    Well, just to put this in context...

    The Mounties, scared the hell out of Canadians by announcing that these people acquired three tons of ammonium nitrate, and were quoted in their press conference as saying "To put this in context, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people took one ton of ammonium nitrate."

    Only later did it come out that it was undercover Mounties who sold them fake ammonium nitrate, and even encouraged them to buy the stuff.

    --

    Deconstruct the State
  5. Not all the anti-terrorist laws by Bullfish · · Score: 5, Informative

    The anti-terrorism act is still there. Just a portion of the laws are being allowed to expire. Frankly, I never saw the point of the laws in the first place. If there ever was a real terrorist issue, we have enough criminals laws to deal with them. That is what they are... criminals. Sometimes they are better armed and organized than the average bear, but they can also be three kooks with an ax to grind.

    If the threat was more widespread, we always have the emergencies act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act ) which replaced the war measures act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act ).

  6. Re:Article ignores politican context by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist

    We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!

    --
    "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
  7. Re:Thanks for visiting? by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "a cold molson"?
    A real Canadian would use the term "beers".

    Come now, I think calling Molson "beer" is being a bit generous. Sure, it has less resemblance to water than the mainstream US brands (Budweiser, Millers, etc.), but calling it "beer" is just taking things a bit too far.
    --
    Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
  8. Re:Hold the phone... by fishboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The five individuals you speak of have been held on security certificates, an aspect of Canadian law that was not part of the Anti-terrorism act that will sunset tomorrow. Certain aspects of those security certificates, however, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court of Canada last week in a 9-0 ruling, giving the government one year to come up with provisions for adequate defence for the accused and a means for the dealing of evidence that is deemed essential to national security.

    The anti-terrorism act was largely a means by which the government of the day dealt with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, both to appease the public that something was being done about terrorism, but mostly to head off accusations from the Bush administration that Canada was soft on terrorism. They were never used because Canadian law already possessed draconian measures to detain suspects indefinitely without charge, the ability to try them without ever revealing the charges, and to use evidence that they and their lawyers are not allowed to see.

  9. Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. by IceDiver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."

    I would argue that, since the laws have never been used, they were unneeded, not untested. Furthermore, key provisions of the laws were recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Canadian courts.

    So, not only were the laws not necessary, they contravened the highest law of the land. It's no wonder Parliament voted them down! I'm just surprised that the same hasn't happened yet to the blatantly unconstitutional laws that have been enacted since 9/11 south of the Canadian border!